![]() |
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jim Yanik wrote in
: "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in : http://www.f-16.net/reference/versions/f16_79.html I've read that the F-104's speed is really limited by the compressor inlet temperature on the J79, and that the airframe itself supports much higher speeds. Since the J79 fits (modified) in a F-16, what then if we were to fit a GE-F110 type engine with closer to twice the thrust? Regards... What's the point? Apart from the shear fun? :^) Acceleration, climbrate, fuel economy. It's still not going to handle all that well,perhaps worse with the extra speed. And probably not worth the money spent on the project. BTW,would the F-104's inlets then become the major restriction for airflow into the engine? I believe the jets that use the newer engines have much larger inlets. http://www.dcr.net/~stickmak/JOHT/joht12f-104.htm "Early Starfighters could not exceed Mach 2.2 without damaging the engine; on later models with the -19 engine this was increased to Mach 2.3. The canopy limit is around Mach 2.6. The airframe on late models is stable out to Mach 2.8." Don't know if this can be verified, but I guess a F110 would be a tight squeeze anyway, having a larger diameter than the j79. Regards... |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|